Jury Selection And Duties
Jury Selection in Canada
Canada uses a jury system primarily for serious criminal offences, particularly indictable offences. Jury selection and duties are governed by:
Criminal Code of Canada (CCC) – Sections 604–631 outline juror eligibility, challenges, and duties.
Juries Act – Provincial legislation supplements the federal law.
Eligibility of Jurors
Must be a Canadian citizen.
Aged 18 or older.
Residing in the province for at least one year.
Free from certain criminal convictions, particularly indictable offences.
Exemptions
Judges, lawyers, police officers, and some public officials may be exempt.
Permanent exemptions can exist for illness or hardship.
Jury Selection Process
1. Jury Roll
Names are drawn from voter lists, health cards, or provincial databases.
2. Summons
Eligible jurors are summoned to court.
3. Voir Dire (Jury Selection Hearing)
Both Crown and Defence can challenge jurors:
Challenge for Cause: Juror is biased or unfit (unlimited).
Peremptory Challenge: No reason needed (number limited by law, previously 12, now reduced after reforms in some provinces).
Duties of a Juror
Attend all trials as summoned.
Listen to evidence and arguments carefully.
Follow instructions from the judge regarding the law.
Decide the case based solely on evidence presented in court.
Maintain confidentiality and impartiality.
Deliver a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
Notable Canadian Cases on Jury Selection and Duties
Here are six detailed cases illustrating principles, challenges, and duties:
1. R. v. Sherratt (1991 SCC)
Facts: Sherratt challenged the jury selection process, alleging discrimination against potential jurors of Indigenous background.
Decision: Supreme Court upheld the conviction but emphasized that jury lists must ensure fair representation of the community.
Significance: Ensures that jury selection respects demographic diversity and avoids systemic bias.
2. R. v. Pan; R. v. Weaver (2001 SCC)
Facts: Issues arose over misrepresentation of evidence to jurors and potential bias.
Decision: SCC stressed that jurors must base their verdict solely on evidence presented in court, and instructions by judges are critical to prevent bias.
Significance: Reinforces juror duty to ignore outside influences and rely only on admissible evidence.
3. R. v. Bain (1992 SCC)
Facts: Bain claimed a miscarriage of justice due to jury misunderstanding of legal instructions, particularly on reasonable doubt.
Decision: SCC ruled that jurors must be properly instructed, and misapprehension can lead to appeal and retrial.
Significance: Highlights the critical role of judicial guidance in ensuring jurors understand their legal duties.
4. R. v. Wigglesworth (1987 SCC)
Facts: Defense challenged jury selection based on potential juror bias due to prior knowledge of parties involved.
Decision: SCC allowed challenge for cause when a juror’s impartiality is in doubt.
Significance: Establishes that jurors must be impartial, and challenges for cause are essential to protect a fair trial.
5. R. v. Marquard (1993 SCC)
Facts: Marquard was convicted; appeal focused on jury instructions regarding legal presumptions.
Decision: SCC held that improper explanation of presumptions can undermine the verdict, requiring retrial in some cases.
Significance: Shows the importance of juror understanding of legal concepts, including presumption of innocence.
6. R. v. D.D. (2000 SCC)
Facts: A case where juror misconduct occurred, including discussing the case with outsiders.
Decision: SCC overturned conviction due to breach of juror duty and contamination of deliberation.
Significance: Emphasizes juror confidentiality and impartiality as fundamental duties.
7. R. v. Jordan (2016 SCC) – Indirect Relevance
Facts: While primarily a case on trial delay, issues arose regarding juror availability and selection due to lengthy pre-trial periods.
Decision: Reinforced that jurors must be available and trials conducted efficiently to protect the right to a fair trial.
Significance: Shows that jury selection and duties are impacted by procedural fairness and timely trials.
Key Themes from Case Law
Impartiality is Paramount – Jurors must not have biases or external influences.
Proper Jury Instructions – Misunderstanding legal terms like “reasonable doubt” can undermine justice.
Challenges Protect Fairness – Both peremptory and for-cause challenges ensure impartial juries.
Diversity and Representation – Jury rolls must reflect community demographics to avoid discrimination.
Juror Misconduct is Serious – Breaches of duty can lead to retrials or overturned convictions.
Evidence-Only Verdicts – Jurors must rely solely on admissible evidence.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Issue | Court | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R. v. Sherratt (1991 SCC) | Jury list fairness | SCC | Conviction upheld | Jury must reflect community diversity |
| R. v. Pan; R. v. Weaver (2001 SCC) | Bias & external info | SCC | Conviction upheld | Jurors must base verdict on court evidence only |
| R. v. Bain (1992 SCC) | Misunderstanding instructions | SCC | Conviction overturned | Correct jury instructions are essential |
| R. v. Wigglesworth (1987 SCC) | Potential juror bias | SCC | Challenge for cause allowed | Impartiality protects fair trial |
| R. v. Marquard (1993 SCC) | Misstated legal presumption | SCC | Retrial ordered | Juror comprehension of law is vital |
| R. v. D.D. (2000 SCC) | Juror misconduct | SCC | Conviction overturned | Confidentiality & impartiality critical |
| R. v. Jordan (2016 SCC) | Jury availability & delays | SCC | Verdict procedural | Timely trials ensure juror effectiveness |
Summary
Jury selection ensures impartiality, community representation, and fairness in criminal trials.
Juror duties include listening, impartiality, confidentiality, and following legal instructions.
Canadian case law emphasizes procedural fairness, proper jury instructions, and prevention of misconduct to uphold the integrity of the jury system.
RELATED Blog
comments